The Hillsborough County Commission on Wednesday approved a non-binding memorandum of understanding to invest nearly $1 billion in public money for the construction of a stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays.
The vote was 5-2, with Donna Cameron Cepeda and Joshua Wostal, an outspoken critic of the agreement, voting no.
"A monumental betrayal to the taxpayers of Hillsborough County," Wostal said.
The Tampa City Council will take up tentative agreement Thursday morning.
Approval by both boards authorizes the city, county and Rays to resume negotiations on unresolved specifics not in the MOU, which was finalized last week after months of negotiations.
County officials say the memorandum will serve as a template for those talks.
The tentative agreement, finalized last week by the team, county and city, details financing for the $2.3 billion indoor stadium, which would be the anchor of a private multiuse development on land now used by Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus.
“The bottom line is that to not move the process forward, to simply put the brakes on it at this moment, in my view, would be highly irresponsible,” said Commissioner Harry Cohen, who voted yes.
“You do have to have some faith in our community, in order to make a step forward on a vote like this. But I believe in this community. I believe in Tampa, I believe in Hillsborough County, and I believe in the region. I believe that the region will support this team if it's in the right place, in the right circumstances. And that is what this is about getting to."
The MOU caps the public contribution at $976 million. The county’s share is $360 million from the Community Investment Tax, $303 million from tourist taxes and reserves, $30 million from federal disaster recovery funds.
The CIT money would be paid over four years, according to the agreement, with no bonding, which would save on interest and issuance costs.
Public funds would only go to public areas of the ballpark.
The Rays have committed $1.27 billion toward the stadium plus all cost overruns.
Before the vote, Wostal sternly asked a series of questions of county staff involved in the negotiations. Among them was whether there was any coercion involved in finalizing the MOU to "meet the state Legislature's mandate that the local government's reach an agreement prior to the release of the state's appropriations for this deal."
"Can I say that we were threatened? No, we were not," replied Deputy County Administrator Greg Horwedel.
Wostal closed by calling for the MOU to be placed on the November ballot, "so the taxpayers have an appropriate voice to signify their support" for use of taxpayer dollars.
"This MOU absolutely imposes risk and harm, not only to law enforcement and first responders, but also the general taxpayers, and nobody can suggest otherwise," he said.
The city council has two votes scheduled on the MOU. At a 9 a.m. meeting, councilors will vote on investing $80 million from its portion of the CIT, a half-cent sales tax whose renewal takes effect in December.
If there is passage, councilors will meet again at 11 as the Community Redevelopment Area board to consider using $100 million from the Drew Park CRA, which would cover upfront costs with future property tax growth.
At 3 p.m. Wednesday, the college board of trustees will meet and vote on a ground lease with the Rays. As part of the agreement, the team would lease the 130-acre Drew Park property from the college. The Tampa Sports Authority must also vote on the agreement.
The team set a June 1 deadline for all stakeholders to agree on the deal. The Rays have said any delay could jeopardize state funding to rebuild the college.
According to the MOU, unresolved contractual issues to negotiate include:
- Funding backstop & surety for a portion of CIT funding source.
- Source of funding for CapEx (maintenance) expenses.
- Future development mix, ownership of non-ballpark land underlying private development and impact on property taxes.
- Rays’ commitment to minimum valuation for private development (excluding ballpark, college facilities and other tax-exempt uses).
- Recourse for county, city and CRA if all proposed private development does not materialize.
- Ballpark cost estimates, scope of value engineering and local government input on design/construction of public use areas.
- Revenue sharing for parking and certain other revenues.
- A Community Benefits Agreement.
